I believe I can agree / understand / see some of the general ideas / points / teachings relating to what’s being discussed here, but I can’t say I have understood everything.
Instead of quickly coming to conclusions and might possibly cause myself and others confusion and misunderstandings down the road. I feel it would be most beneficial for myself to critically evaluate my own understanding and should ask questions for further clarification, hoping to gain better clarity and understanding in regards to what’s being discussed here.
“In post #40386
It mentions that “namagotta are NOT rupakkhandha”.
I just read that comment. I did not see that statement there.
I apologize for the careless mistake. I am to blame for the confusion and misunderstanding, my apologies. The actual post is #40388
“However, only the “necessary ingredients (vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana) that can “re-create” that “image of the tree” is preserved in the namaloka as namagotta. When those ingredients are reflected back to the mind as “dhammā,” the mind can re-create the “image of the tree.” In other words, namagotta are NOT rupakkhandha.”
This is where I need some help with clarifying. Recent reply mentions:
Hopefully, you can confirm that the rupakkhandha is “all mental” and is defined by only the four mental aggregates (but only the first three are enough.) “Thus, in this case, namagotta is purely rupakkhandha”
#1.
I can’t say I’m 100% clear about the 2 bolded statements.
“In other words, namagotta are NOT rupakkhandha”
“Thus, in this case, namagotta is purely rupakkhandha”
I can see the points why the “namagotta are NOT rupakkhandha”, but maybe the problem with my understanding is that I can’t say I’m exactly clear on how namagotta is purely rupakkhandha when namagotta is not rupakkhandha.
From a recent post where it’s mentioned: “i.e., nāmagotta is not the same as rupakkhandha. Still, it comes back as rupakkhandha (corresponding to that time) when recalled.”
If I were to try answer my own question #1. It would be what is mentioned in a recent PD post. “Namagotta is not the same as rupakkhandha”, but it becomes rupakkhandha when we recall a memory.
Is this the same as saying “Thus, in this case, <u>namagotta is purely rupakkhandha” when we recall a memory?</u>
#2.
Having reviewed materials from other PD posts and this thread. It has led me to believe that rupakkhandha is not preserved (stored?) in the namaloka as rupakkhandha but as the 4 mental aggregates.
It’s mentioned:
“The four nāma aggregates are preserved in the nāma loka (immaterial or mental world) as nāmagotta.”
“The four mental aggregates are preserved as a memory record or nāmagotta.”
“Rupakkhanada is not stored directly<br />
9. It is critical to realize that a “rupa” cannot be stored in the viññāṇa dhatu. Only a “mental imprint” of a rupa gets stored. That “mental imprint” is in the four “mental aggregates.”
“To emphasize, only the four mental components are preserved in the nāma loka. The rupa loka has only “material things,” Thus, rupakkhandha is NOT preserved.
In post # 44649, it’s mentioned:
“Rupakkhanda is preserved in the namaloka as namagotta”
If I have understood all the italicized sentences under #2 correctly. Rupakkhandha itself isn’t preserved in the namaloka, but “rupakkhandha is preserved (stored?) in the namaloka as namagotta through the 4 mental aggregates? Have I understood this correctly?